IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

WRIT PETITION No.27252 of 2014

DATED: 28.11.2025

Between:

Y.Srinivas … Petitioner

AND

The Greater Hyderabad Municipal

Corporation, Rep. by Commissioner,

Tank Bund, Hyderabad and two others.

… Respondents

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed to direct the respondent Nos.1

and 2 to take action against respondent No.3 and stop further construction of house bearing No.12-2-725/12, in Plot No.12 of P & T Colony, Rethibowli, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘subject property’), in contravention of approved plan dated

19.07.2013.

2. Heard Sri B.Jayakar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G.Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for

respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of house bearing No.12-2-725/15, situated at P & T Colony, Rethibowli, Hyderabad. The respondent No.3 who is the neighbor of petitioner and owner of the subject property has obtained permission for construction of building consists of Stilt + 3 upper floors vide permit No.25882/DC/CZ/Cir-7/2013, dated 19.07.2013. However, contrary to the sanctioned plan, respondent No.3 was constructing the cellar portion and 4th floor, due to which foundations of adjoining houses including the house of petitioner are affected; that petitioner made a representation dated 04.08.2014 to respondents’ Corporation, against the illegal construction of respondent No.3, but no action has been taken by the respondents’ Corporation.

Aggrieved by the same, present writ petition is filed.

4. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 would submit that subsequent to filing of the writ petition, respondent No.3 has filed an application for regularization of the construction in terms of G.O.Ms.No.152 MA dated 02.11.2015 vide application No.2000012472, dated 15.12.2015 and the same is pending. He further submitted that as and when the BRS application of respondent No.3 is disposed of, the respondents-Corporation will take further course of action basing on the outcome of the BRS application of respondent No.3.

5. This Court has given its earnest consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for both the parties and perused the entire material on record.

6. It is relevant to note that the Government of Telangana has formulated Rules for regularization of unauthorized/illegal constructions, which are constructed in deviation of sanctioned plan or without permission, vide GO.Ms.No.152, dated 02.11.2015. As per the said G.O., the application for regularization of unauthorized construction has to be submitted within a period of 60 days from the date of notification of the said Rules along with 50% of regularization amount as per Rule 5 or minimum of Rs.10,000/- whichever is less. The competent authority, i.e., Municipal Commissioner in case of Municipal Corporations, Metropolitan Commissioner in case of HMDA, shall, on scrutiny of applications and inspection of sites, either approve or reject the applications and communicate the same to the applicant(s) concerned as early as possible, but not beyond six months from the date of receipt of applications.

7. The Regularization Rules were notified on 02.11.2015, as per which, applications for regularization were to be filed within 60 days from the said notified date and the same were supposed to be processed within a period of six months from the last date of receipt of applications

8. The regularization scheme under GO.Ms.No.152, dated 02.11.2015 was challenged in WP (PIL).No.63 of 2016, wherein interim directions were passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 18.10.2016 as under:-

“We consider it appropriate, in such circumstances, to modify the earlier order, and direct that the applications for regularization be processed in accordance with the regularization scheme notified in G.O.Ms.No.152 dated 02.11.2015. In case the GHMC or the other Municipal Co